Simar v. Paris

Patterson, J.

(concurring):

I concur in the view that the case should have been submitted to the jury on the question of the plaintiff’s ownership of the goods. His credibility under the state of the proof was for the jury, and it did not become a question of law under the rule as stated in the recent case of Hull v. Litbauer (162 FT. T. 569).

Exceptions sustained, new trial granted, costs to defendant to abide event. ' ,